Should Argentina talk/listen to the Falkland Islanders?

Thatcher Drive, a neat line of bungalows overlooking the Liberation Monument, encapsulates much of what Falklanders want to tell the world. In one window, a sign reads: “Falkland Islands – British to the core”. Next door, another sign says: “No need to knock. Door open. Come in. Give me a shout”.

On the adjoining main road through Port Stanley a cavalcade of Land Rovers – the vehicle of choice for the islands’ gritty roads – trundled past with Union Flags flying from their aerials and posters in the window reading: “Your country wants you to vote ‘yes’”.

This swirl of friendly patriotic pride, which will also include a display this evening of 50 4x4s arranged on a hillside opposite Stanley with their headlights spelling out “YES!”, will climax on Sunday morning when the 1,672 islanders eligible to vote begin to cast their ballots in the two-day referendum on British sovereignty.

After suffering a bellicose campaign from the Argentine government to cripple the Falklands economy and force negotiations on the ownership of “Las Malvinas” – the Argentine name for the islands – onto the international agenda (talks in which Buenos Aires has bluntly insisted the Falklanders would be irrelevant), this is the opportunity for these 3,000 hardy South Atlantic souls to make their voice heard on the world stage.

Argentina is a sovereign nation and should talk with the de facto sovereign power of the Malvinas, UK. Nations speak with Nations.

It would be racist and exceptionally demeaning to expect Argentina to negotiate with the so-called "Falkland Islanders" or the Northampton town council or the Ladies' Sewing Club of Carlisle. As for their so-called referendum, it's meaningless theatrics and can be ignored and disregarded.

Argentina is a sovereign nation and should talk with the de facto sovereign power of the Malvinas, UK. Nations speak with Nations.

It would be racist and exceptionally demeaning to expect Argentina to negotiate with the so-called "Falkland Islanders" or the Northampton town council or the Ladies' Sewing Club of Carlisle. As for their so-called referendum, it's meaningless theatrics and can be ignored and disregarded.

Governments should discuss with the people they govern, or want to govern.

the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein

Argentina is a sovereign nation and should talk with the de facto sovereign power of the Malvinas, UK. Nations speak with Nations.

It would be racist and exceptionally demeaning to expect Argentina to negotiate with the so-called "Falkland Islanders" or the Northampton town council or the Ladies' Sewing Club of Carlisle. As for their so-called referendum, it's meaningless theatrics and can be ignored and disregarded.

Governments should discuss with the people they govern, or want to govern.

Yes. Argentina has offered to discuss with the legal representative of those people, the British Crown. It has refused.

The kelpers local council doesn't have the legal authority or practical power to change the status quo. Only the British Crown does. Negotiating with anyone other than the person or persons who have legal authority or practical power to change the status quo (British Crown) cannot produce results so is a meaningless waste of time. It's a transparently stupid attempt at a PR stunt.

Argentina is a sovereign nation and should talk with the de facto sovereign power of the Malvinas, UK. Nations speak with Nations.

It would be racist and exceptionally demeaning to expect Argentina to negotiate with the so-called "Falkland Islanders" or the Northampton town council or the Ladies' Sewing Club of Carlisle. As for their so-called referendum, it's meaningless theatrics and can be ignored and disregarded.

Governments should discuss with the people they govern, or want to govern.

Yes. Argentina has offered to discuss with the legal representative of those people, the British Crown. It has refused.

The kelpers don't have either the legal authority or practical power to change the status quo. Only the British Crown does. Negotiating with anyone other than the person or persons who have legal authority or practical power to change the status quo (British Crown) cannot produce results so is a meaningless waste of time.

Bollocks- they wanted to talk with William Hague, who ain't the British Crown. He agreed as long as some of the representatives of the Falkland Islanders could be there too. Argentina then backed out.

the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein

Argentina is a sovereign nation and should talk with the de facto sovereign power of the Malvinas, UK. Nations speak with Nations.

It would be racist and exceptionally demeaning to expect Argentina to negotiate with the so-called "Falkland Islanders" or the Northampton town council or the Ladies' Sewing Club of Carlisle. As for their so-called referendum, it's meaningless theatrics and can be ignored and disregarded.

Governments should discuss with the people they govern, or want to govern.

Yes. Argentina has offered to discuss with the legal representative of those people, the British Crown. It has refused.

The kelpers don't have either the legal authority or practical power to change the status quo. Only the British Crown does. Negotiating with anyone other than the person or persons who have legal authority or practical power to change the status quo (British Crown) cannot produce results so is a meaningless waste of time.

Bollocks- they wanted to talk with William Hague, who ain't the British Crown. He agreed as long as some of the representatives of the Falkland Islanders could be there too. Argentina then backed out.

As they should have. If you want to have a diplomatic negotiation you invite the people who are there to conduct serious negotiations. You don't also open a viewing gallery for the local yokels to chime in periodically with 'Oy, but wha' bout the KFC we was promised, guvn'r?' That's not how the Geneva Convention was negotiated, that's not how the transfer agreement will be negotiated.

Argentina is a sovereign nation and should talk with the de facto sovereign power of the Malvinas, UK. Nations speak with Nations.

It would be racist and exceptionally demeaning to expect Argentina to negotiate with the so-called "Falkland Islanders" or the Northampton town council or the Ladies' Sewing Club of Carlisle. As for their so-called referendum, it's meaningless theatrics and can be ignored and disregarded.

Governments should discuss with the people they govern, or want to govern.

Yes. Argentina has offered to discuss with the legal representative of those people, the British Crown. It has refused.

The kelpers don't have either the legal authority or practical power to change the status quo. Only the British Crown does. Negotiating with anyone other than the person or persons who have legal authority or practical power to change the status quo (British Crown) cannot produce results so is a meaningless waste of time.

Bollocks- they wanted to talk with William Hague, who ain't the British Crown. He agreed as long as some of the representatives of the Falkland Islanders could be there too. Argentina then backed out.

As they should have. If you want to have a diplomatic negotiation you invite the people who are there to conduct serious negotiations. You don't also open a viewing gallery for the local yokels to chime in periodically with 'Oy, but wha' bout the KFC we was promised, guvn'r?' That's not how the Geneva Convention was negotiated, that's not how the transfer agreement will be negotiated.

Argentina is a sovereign nation and should talk with the de facto sovereign power of the Malvinas, UK. Nations speak with Nations.

It would be racist and exceptionally demeaning to expect Argentina to negotiate with the so-called "Falkland Islanders" or the Northampton town council or the Ladies' Sewing Club of Carlisle. As for their so-called referendum, it's meaningless theatrics and can be ignored and disregarded.

Governments should discuss with the people they govern, or want to govern.

Yes. Argentina has offered to discuss with the legal representative of those people, the British Crown. It has refused.

The kelpers don't have either the legal authority or practical power to change the status quo. Only the British Crown does. Negotiating with anyone other than the person or persons who have legal authority or practical power to change the status quo (British Crown) cannot produce results so is a meaningless waste of time.

Bollocks- they wanted to talk with William Hague, who ain't the British Crown. He agreed as long as some of the representatives of the Falkland Islanders could be there too. Argentina then backed out.

As they should have. If you want to have a diplomatic negotiation you invite the people who are there to conduct serious negotiations. You don't also open a viewing gallery for the local yokels to chime in periodically with 'Oy, but wha' bout the KFC we was promised, guvn'r?' That's not how the Geneva Convention was negotiated, that's not how the transfer agreement will be negotiated.

A mature negotiation would involve the people involved, or at least their democratically representatives.

Their legal representative is William Hague.

Britain has not granted them sovereignty, therefore, they do not have any legal character outside the framework of the British state. It is the supreme rudeness for Britain to demand a sovereign state (Argentina) treat with a legal non-entity (the kelpers). This was a rude, calculated offense by the British government.

Not at all- Argentina should talk to the representatives of the Islanders they wish to take control of.

First, if that were the case the Argentines would be negotiating with Big Benji, the King of the Penguins. Those are the only islanders the Argentines want to control. The humans there can go jump in the ocean for all they care.

Second, as I said, the representative of the (human) islanders is William Hague. And they are perfectly willing to speak with him.

United Kingdom to France: We would like to build an underwater tunnel crossing La Manche to connect Britain and France.

France to United Kingdom: The UK Prime Minister will have to negotiate all that with Jacques, the intern over at the Calais town road department. Young Jacques has no authority to make any decision one way or the other, however. But that's the guy we want you to speak with - and you must send your PM - and at least 2 viscounts and 5 earls - to talk to him. Good luck!

Not at all- Argentina should talk to the representatives of the Islanders they wish to take control of.

First, if that were the case the Argentines would be negotiating with Big Benji, the King of the Penguins. Those are the only islanders the Argentines want to control. The humans there can go jump in the ocean for all they care.

Second, as I said, the representative of the (human) islanders is William Hague. And they are perfectly willing to speak with him.

As Argentina refused the meeting, I would say that "perfectly willing" is a bit of an exaggeration. The refusal was because the people who live there wanted to talk.

Last edited by Symmetry on Fri Mar 08, 2013 7:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein

Not at all- Argentina should talk to the representatives of the Islanders they wish to take control of.

First, if that were the case the Argentines would be negotiating with Big Benji, the King of the Penguins. Those are the only islanders the Argentines want to control. The humans there can go jump in the ocean for all they care.

Second, as I said, the representative of the (human) islanders is William Hague. And they are perfectly willing to speak with him.

As Argentina refused the meeting, I would say that "perfectly willing" is a bit of an exaggeration.

Let me rephrase that then - they are perfectly willing to speak with him in a dignified setting that respects the status of the Argentine state as an equal to the United Kingdom, which is to say without Pippa Middleton, Posh Spice and the night manager of the Port Stanley Fish 'n Chips all joining in to add their 0.02.

If they are not satisfied with Hague's representation, they can declare independence from the UK and then talk directly to Argentina (or anyone else) on a sovereign-to-sovereign basis to their heart's content. Until then they will need to go through their legal representative, William Hague.

The Argentine Republic does not enter into diplomatic negotiations with local town councils. To demand Argentina humiliate itself before negotiations can begin is an unbelievable insult and shows Britain isn't serious about a peaceful settlement.

edit: despite my slightly charged language, I respect your opinion and willingness to discuss this civilly, Sym; I apologize in advance or reverse if I say something that seems deprecating

United Kingdom to France: We would like to build an underwater tunnel crossing La Manche to connect Britain and France.

France to United Kingdom: The UK Prime Minister will have to negotiate all that with Jacques, the intern over at the Calais town road department. Young Jacques has no authority to make any decision one way or the other, however. But that's the guy we want you to speak with - and you must send your PM - and at least 2 viscounts and 5 earls - to talk to him. Good luck!

Do the Falkland Islanders/kelpers have any discretion over the issue of ceding British territory to Argentina?

If not, then why insist that Argentina must negotiate with them or include them in the negotiations?

United Kingdom to France: We would like to build an underwater tunnel crossing La Manche to connect Britain and France.

France to United Kingdom: The UK Prime Minister will have to negotiate all that with Jacques, the intern over at the Calais town road department. Young Jacques has no authority to make any decision one way or the other, however. But that's the guy we want you to speak with - and you must send your PM - and at least 2 viscounts and 5 earls - to talk to him. Good luck!

Do the Falkland Islanders/kelpers have any discretion over the issue of ceding British territory to Argentina?

If not, then why insist that Argentina must negotiate with them or include them in the negotiations?

Yes, exactly. Even if they suddenly decided to turn over the whole island chain to Argentina it would be a moot point; only Britain can make that decision. This is just an effort to draw-out the process and muddy the waters.

If the people of Shreveport suddenly become outraged by Russia, Mayor Billy Bob Brazeau doesn't enter into negotiations with Russia, no matter how outraged they feel. The legal representative of the people of Shreveport is the U.S. President. If they are not satisfied with that representation then that is an internal matter they will need to sort out on their own.

It would be ridiculous to expect Russia to conclude overlapping agreements with hundreds of U.S. cities, any one of which the U.S. government could arbitrarily override at will and without warning. Nations don't conduct themselves this way. It's a British publicity stunt to sell to the London tabloids.

Last edited by saxitoxin on Fri Mar 08, 2013 9:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

If the UK actually wanted the Falkanders to become part of the negotiation, then why not grant that political entity its own Full sovereignty? If national security (e.g. ARG invasion) is an issue, then the two sovereign nations of UK and Kelper Kingdom can sign a military alliance, thus giving UK casus belli if ARG invades.

Then, the Falklanders would have the discretion to resolve this issue. But that doesn't happen. Why? Because the UK ultimately does not wish to relinquish its full control over that island?

It seems that the UK is not at all interested in negotiating with anybody (neither ARG nor Kelper Kingdom). If anyone believes otherwise, then how would they explain all the above problems in this post and my previous one?

BigBallinStalin wrote:If the UK actually wanted the Falkanders to become part of the negotiation, then why not grant that political entity its own Full sovereignty? If national security (e.g. ARG invades) is an issue, then the two sovereign nations can sign a military alliance, thus giving UK casus belli if ARG invades.

Then, the Falklanders would have the discretion to resolve this issue. But that doesn't happen. Why? Because the UK ultimately does not wish to relinquish its full control over that island?

Yes, correct!

They demand the "Falklanders" be part of negotiations. There's a simple way to do that: grant the islands independence at which point they can immediately join the negotiations as a sovereign and Argentina would have no right to refuse their presence. It's quite simple and, as you point out, they could even guarantee against an Argentine invasion by immediately concluding a mutual defense treaty with the UK.

But, if Malvinas became independent, the "Falklanders" suddenly gain control of all 200 miles of the Exclusive Economic Zone that surrounds the islands and in which the oil is located. Right now, London directly rules 198 of the 200 miles.

So they moan and groan about letting the "Falklanders" negotiate but refuse to give them the one power they need to actually do that, thereby revealing their own interest in the whole matter. Britain has no gas, but in the bank they've lots of cash ...

Of course, I'd have to assume that the oil industry--at least its lobbying association(s)--have some influence on key politicians who in turn can shape this event to the benefit of both parties.

Or I can assume that British politicians are selfless and completely dedicated to serving the unknowable public good.

Or I can assume that given the lobbying, the 'bribed' politicians don't hold enough influence, yet for some other reason (a series of unintended consequences??), both the oil industry and the 'bribed' politicians still benefit.